Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

1. You have to be 21 to buy a handgun. The AR-15, which the boy used at Douglas High shooting, can be bought at the age of 18
2. The AR-15 is a military grade weapon, not for hunting deer or the shooting range.
3. Automatic weapons are banned. There is a modification called a "bum-stick" that turns a semi into an auto. It is perfectly legal, and the Vegas gunman used one.
4. Many policeman and soldiers he met are for heavier gun laws.
5. Nobody considers themselves "anti-gun". The NRA considers others "anti-gun". People are just for common sense gun laws.
6. Hunting rifles are a cornerstone of American culture, not military weapons.

3) is technically more complicated.

The Firearm Owners Protection Act bans new automatic weapons for civilian use. People who owned them prior to this are still allowed to have them. This is an extremely small number, as there were already regulated (but still available) after the 1934 National Firearms Act.

Turning a semi-automatic into a fully automatic is illegal. While bump-stocks have an effect that is somewhat similar to this, technically and legally a semi-automatic with a bump-stock is not an automatic. You still have to pull the trigger each time you want to fire. However, the bump-stock does make it easier to pull the trigger at a much faster rate than which the average person could without it.

5) I would say that the majority of people who want the popular supported gun regulation changes do fall into common sense gun group, not anti-gun. However, I have no doubt there are people out there who legitimately want all guns gone.

I assume that the age to buy a handgun is higher than the age to buy a rifle is because a handgun is easier to conceal. Actually, when it comes to most incidents, I'd wager a handgun is more dangerous than a rifle because It's easier to conceal, and most of the time (Las Vegas being an obvious exception) the shooter is within fairly close range, and thus, the extra range provided by a rifle isn't needed. Though to be fair, a rifle generally has a larger magazine capacity (20-30 vs 7-15) and I suppose it may be more stable than a handgun (I honestly don't know on this, never fired a gun myself). I also suppose a rifle also has more of a fear factor associated with it these days as well.

I'm not sure what the actual difference in firepower between a 9mm handgun and a 5.56mm rifle are, but if you don't have body armor, I don't think it matters much.

One thing to consider though, for how many guns there are in the U.S., only a small amount of them are actually used in criminal activity, and most of those are handguns, not rifles. Go figure. So in the grand scheme of things, I doubt an "assault weapon" ban would actually accomplish much, though I suppose mandatory safety classes and registration (much like owning a car) might be a step in the right direction.

Anyways, I'm mostly talking out my ass here, not like I own a gun, so I don't have much of a stake in gun laws myself.

EDIT:

"2. The AR-15 is a military grade weapon, not for hunting deer or the shooting range."

Not for shooting deer, sure (well, you could…), but I see no problem using it on a shooting range.

Wikipedia article on practical shooting competition

Starting with something funny, but relevant

I'm not a huge "gun/weapon guy" but I was my unit's armorer in the Us Army and pretty much had to work with these things every day, as far as M16A2's (AR-15) and they were never fully automatic.

We can all argue over gun laws and NRA and shit no problem, but what really concerns me in the future (for all we know the present) is that "Ghost Guns" will always be prevalent.

What I mean is simply look at this video

That's a Ghost Gun

They can make all the laws they want, but nothing is stopping people with 3D printers and people either buying weapons off the deep web or even more simply buying them on the street.

and to top everything else off is that anger is human nature, but resorting to violence recklessly can only end bad for everyone

At number 2, a while back ago when I brought up the idea of banning semi-auto's, I was informed that there is a legit reason for people like frontiermen or range workers to have them, cause they are the only reliable way to hit running predators after your livestock.

At number 4, that's blatant appeal to authority/expert and doesn't have much to do with anything. Yes, I'm sure the policemen who have to deal with people with guns would like for there to be less guns.

Also, I've said this before, but just asking for "heavier guns laws" is pointless. It's not like a knob you can turn up when shits not going your way, you have to come up with specific ideas for gun laws along with evidence that your proposed gun law will have a net-positive effect before we can even begin doing something.

Here's the thing about number 4. Less guns on the street would probably result in a drop of police shooting civilians.

In countries like Canada, New Zealand, etc. cops are more relaxed. We don't have nearly as many accidental shootings because when the police go to an incident, they work under the assumption that they are not going into a warzone. That if there are any aggressive suspects, they can be easily handled with non-lethal force.

In America however, the sheer amount of guns mean that when a policeman gets called into an incident, they know that any wrong mistakes will get themselves killed. Thus, they go into a situation guns drawn and ready for anything like its the wild west, because the suspects are probably packing and have the power to kill them dead if they make One Wrong Move. Because they can't risk it, police have to take zero chances.

TLDR, if there were less guns, then not only the problem of mass shootings be addressed, but also the issue of police shootings as well. Wouldn't mean these things just vanish, but it would go a long way towards reducing them. I'm not surprised the police would want tighter control, it would go a long way towards making their own job safer.

Every one ITT has valid points.

I try to take serious issues like these with the broadest perspective as possible when brought up and not only is it causing distraught in the most legitimate SuperPower Countries in the world, it is a force that can not be stopped. Just like the war on drugs.

Human beings are extremely prolific with what they choose to do. As long as it fits their personal needs. Not to say that the ethics involved are considered "wrong" or "right" in the eyes of the person/s that deem fit. But fire arms are the most readily available form of resolution of personal "power". And what I mean is that to reiterate the simple fact of ending a person's life in a split second.

Many can argue that, "yeah all weapons kill people" but it takes no true skill to take a life my the means of a firearm. In my eyes, that is the act of a coward. (don't get me started on Police shootings lmao)

All I can say more on this topic is that I firmly believe that knowledge is power and if we all took the small time out of the day to realize that ending someone's life can only be matched with a person who threatens to end other people's lives it would be justified. (which really wouldn't happen at all if humans respected life in general).

No Offense but an AR-15 is not a military grade weapon. That's why it is designated an AR-15, and not an M-16, which is the military version.

A lot of folks think the AR in AR-15 stands for "Automatic Rifle 15" which isn't true, it stands for Arma-Lite 15, the original creators of the M-16 rifle. AR-15's are semi-automatic, which mean they operate much the same way as a Handgun, and can't be shot automatically unless modified to do so.

They look like the military version but that's pretty much it, perhaps that's why your father was confused about it. It's like claiming the Beretta 92 is a "Military Grade Weapon". It's not, it looks like the M9 but it isn't the same thing, there are differences between the two.

Sorry my dude, but you are wrong. The AR-15 was just a cheap mock-up of a M16a2 semi-automatic rifle. The only difference between the two of them can be legit described here in this thread.

Nothing upsets me more than someone talking about the magnitude of something with out knowledge of it. Just make sure you know what you are talking about before you make claims.

Wait, how can the AR-15 be a knock-off of a M16A2 if the AR-15 existed before the M16 technically did?

Wikipedia page on the AR-15

As of today though, there are literally hundreds of variations of the AR-15 from various manufacturers, including the M16 as well as AR-15 models derived from the M16… Go figure. They all can be traced back to the original ArmaLite though.

The AR-15 is seriously the AK-47 of the western world in it's pervasiveness.

Now, if you're specifically talking about the Colt AR-15, then yeah, that was based on the M16 for sale to civilian and law enforcement.

EDIT: Perhaps what would be more helpful is use of the term Modern Sporting Rifle that was created to refer specifically to all the derivatives of the AR-15.

EDIT 2: As for the term "Military Grade", well, it's too vague to really mean anything. After all, there are plenty of handguns that the military uses, but we don't generally refer to those as military grade.

1. As others have addressed, that's due to the fact that pistols can be concealed. In Texas (and probably a few other states) you can open carry a rifle, but pistols require a license to conceal carry.

2. Military-grade is a buzzword that is used for fear-mongering. It only means it meets the criteria of durability, serviceability, accuracy and modularity set forth by The Government. It has no legal bearing on anything whatsoever.

3. Automatic weapons are banned after a certain date (1987 I believe, but I'm honestly not quite sure). You can still buy older automatic weapons like a Thompson sub-machinegun or a Mac-10 but they carry heavy tax stamps and require extensive paperwork/background checks. Also the vegas gunman used something called "bump-firing" which doesn't make a gun full auto, it simply increases the firing rate so it simulates automatic firing. Full auto is still much faster, since it is not tied to human reflexes. It actually requires less parts to make a gun full-auto than semi-auto.

4. "Heavier gun laws" is extremely vague.

5. What is considered a common sense law is entirely subjective. Stuff like banning magazine sizes or certain guns does little to prevent gun murders, just which gun/weapon/tool is used for the murder.

6. Again, "military-grade" is a buzzword. People hunt with M1 Garands which were at one point standard issue rifles. Some people also hunt with black powder rifles which were, again, military issue at one point in history.

American Ronin said:

The AR-15 is a military grade weapon.

The military wold never use an AR-15 for the simple reason that they're only semi-automatic. M-16s and M-4s are full auto (with semi-auto options). There are also other differences such as weight, barrel size, etc. that the military has made to its version to hone it for its use.

While it's true the AR-15 is based on the M-16, most civilian guns (Glock, 1911, Desert Eagle, etc.) are based on their military versions. Arms manufacturers almost always design and initially build their guns for military use as that's where the real money's at. Later, they make modified versions for commercial sale.

Automatic weapons are banned.

No, they're just incredibly expensive to own and operate. New civilian automatic firearms are banned, but existing ones are grandfathered in. Limited supply = huge price. You also have to register with the ATF if you buy one.

Nobody considers themselves “anti-gun”.

Very seldom will any political group give themselves an "anti" name, as that 1) feeds the opposing group's views and 2) cedes to the opposing group the terminology. It's not "anti-life," it's "pro-abortion." It's not "anti-gun," it's "pro-gun regulation." ("Gun control" has fairly negative connotations these days so there's a trend toward using different terms, hence "common sense gun laws" becoming the norm, rather than "gun control laws.")

Alex-_- said:

…of a M16a2 semi-automatic rifle…

The M-16A2 has 3 round burst fire, which qualifies as a machine gun (and thus, an automatic weapon) under the National Firearms Act.

@ xTSGx

True it might say that in the National Firearms Act (i'll check that out).

But just cause it the "Act" says that, my common sense and training from the ones that actually supply the M16a2 and M4's to the US military says different.

You are absolutely correct about the 3 round burst option on the weapon, but when I mean fully automatic it means that when you hold the trigger down, a steady rate of automatic fire continues until the magazine or amount of ammunition is completely finished.

But nice point none the less xTSGx

That and guns can be pretty easy to make for example

This gun. It's a full-automatic 9mm. It was built at home, using parts one could easily find at a hardware store.

Can someone answer this: what is the big deal about AR15s?
1. Even the "military version" the Marines use is not fully automatic… it has a 3 round burst setting… that is it.
2. I know of lots of folks that hunt with their AR15 setups, in a variety of calibers… from 223 to 50 beowulf and for game ranging from rock chucks and coyotes to deer, bear, and hogs. Why wouldn't they be a great option for hunters? In some hunting situations, multiple shots at game might be possible… where a semi auto would be a great advantage (pest hunting like for ground squirrels, overpopulated rabbits, feral hogs, etc.) They are a fairly lightweight rifle option, with lots of ways for the hunter to conform the accessories to his tastes and needs. So, why does the anti gun crowd always make it sound like folks who own AR15s are evil?
3. There are non AR15 semi auto hunting rifles and shotguns… what is the big deal? many of which have higher capacity magazines that can be added if the hunting situation warrants it. Think about the Ruger 10/22… one of the most common small game hunting rifles out there, and one that has been used by countless youth to learn the basics of firearm safety and accuracy… it most commonly comes with a 25 round magazine.
4. The Ruger Mini Ranch 14 is identical in capabilities of the AR15 556, shoots the same bullets, has the same mag capacity, etc. It has been considered an excellent choice for pest control, ranch and range duties, predator control, etc for decades.

This is also what I don't get about the whole AR15 debate… doesn't the 2nd amendment imply that the right to bear arms is not just for hunting, but is also to keep the state free from tyranny?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What is the problem with responsible citizens owning an AR15? Does anyone REALLY believe that if we take AR15s away from hunters and other responsible gun owners, that somehow magically that will mean that Bad Guys won't be able to commit gun crimes? Or that bad guys won't be able to still get an AR15 on the black market if they wanted? Doesn't it make common sense that if AR15s were banned, the ONLY people who would abide by the law, would be the law abiding citizens who already use their AR15s responsibly and are no threat to the public?

The first post of this thread mentioned that there is a belief that "Nobody considers themselves “anti-gun”. The NRA considers others “anti-gun”. People are just for common sense gun laws."

There are PLENTY of youtube posts and op ed articles in various publications over the years that indicate this statement is FALSE. In fact, the end GOAL of the hardline drivers of the Anti Gun movement is to ultimately get all guns banned.

Why not instead of "banning guns" under the premise of "protecting society" we promote responsible gun use? Offer training programs in schools to teach children how to handle firearms safely and responsibly. We allow well trained and vetted citizens to be armed in schools, courtrooms, and airplanes so that "bad guys" don't see these places as an easy mark.

Imagine if even one teacher at Sandy Hook, or any of the recent shootings had been trained in self defense, and was allowed to carry a concealed weapon at the school? How far would the "bad guys" have made it before they were stopped? Perhaps a few students would have still been lost, but not anything close to the numbers that were. By removing guns from the hands of responsible and trained teachers, we basically sent these kids to those schools like lambs to the slaughter. No one there was legally allowed to defend them. That is a shame. Shame on the anti gun crowd for leaving our schools unprotected.

Not only that, but how many (unpublicized, or under publicized) deaths are PREVENTED each year because a responsible gun owner was able to defend themselves or others from a "bad guy"? Would any of the recent school shootings have even happened to begin with if the "bad guy" had known there was a possibility of someone inside being armed and trained to defend themselves and the children? Of course not. But instead, the anti gun crowd has painted a big red X on every school, which is an invitation to every "bad guy" to come and wreak their havoc, because no-one inside can defend themselves.